Patton is Phenomenal!!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Edit: Just looked at it, I;d say a Casino Royale style DNR was done. Theraputic but not enough to crush the fine detail.

Hah !
Wicky, you're hedging your bets.

Does anyone here remember the theatrical presentation of Hellboy?
Hell, it was only about four years ago and it seems that everyone and his grandfather on the interent have vivid recollections of Patton.

I will say one thing, HeavyHitter is correct in that it looks phenomenal.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Possibly I'm not being clear.

As I noted, Patton can give the illusion of beauty and quality on screens small enough to hide its deficiencies.

I can see people in that situation giving it a 9 or 10.

On large screens, and via quality playback, it becomes all too obvious that the entire look of a great film has been destroyed.

In that arena the Zero may not take it down far enough.

Mr. Hafner and I are in total agreement.

^
Bob, since you and mhafner are in complete agreement as to magnitude of the DNR issue with Patton, care to explain why you and he have such a difference of opinion regarding the “current master” of LoA ?

You can start reading in and around here for catching up to speed……………….
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1547

[thebluemax]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Some people may like the way it looks, but to say this is "perfection" is simply not correct, since it does not look the way the actual movie looks.

I don't care how the movie actually should look, in my estimation this BD is the best I have ever seen "Patton". I saw the movie when it first came out and this BD is better. Just my novice opinion.

[WickyWoo]

Hah !
Wicky, you're hedging your bets.

Actually I'm very sure. There's too little grain in general in it, it's not natural especially given how del Toro's movies typically look theatrically. I've seen them all since Mimic. The Hellboy 2 trailer I saw last night with Hulk, was certainly cleaner than I would expect, however it also had a very different lighting profile than most of the footage in Hellboy 1, so I don't see it as a fair comparison.

So in conclusion whether the noise reduction was done to the DI by del Toro or to the Blu, I'm confident it was done. If I had to wager I'd say it was done on the DI given the look and feel of the Hellboy 2 trailer

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

Sorry, even if I was Catholic I wouldn't believe in the Pope's infallibility. He's got an opinion. It's not sacrosanct.

That Patton BD does not look like the film it was mastered from way way beyond the difference imposed by the HD format itself is a fact and not open for debate. A fact confirmed by any professional who knows how film in general looks and what Patton looks like. So let's stop that nonsense of claiming something else right now.
The only discussion worth having is if that changed look of Patton is a good or bad thing for HD media, or more generally, do we want our HD versions to look like the films they came from or something else entirely. Here we have two camps, let's call them the purists and the revisionists.
Purists believe:
HD versions of films (and any other sources) should look as close as possible to the original look of that source (minus unwanted artifacts that polluted the source since its creation, such as scratches, dropouts, color fading and the like (NOT GRAIN)) as good as the medium allows. Adpatation of the source to specific consumer tastes and needs are the responsibilty of said consumers which they can achieve at home on their displays as they desire. They do not belong on the source where they are forced down everybody's collective throats. Film is an art form as well as a commercial commodity.
Revisionists believe:
HD versions of anything should look the way they like it best, whatever that may be (out of the window look, 3D effect, 3D pop, noiseless, grainless, in color, in 3D, pin sharp, saturated colors...). The original look of the source as designed by its creators is irrelevant. Personal immediate viewing pleasure is everything. Film is only a commercial commodity.

So all the outcries that Patton looks fantastic are beside the point, as nobody can invalidate someone else's personal criteria of what a fantastic picture looks like. That's not the issue. The issue is if Patton and all other HD versions should look like the sources they came from, whether the audience prefers that or some other look. And if the audience prefers a modified look, how to achieve that without preventing everyone from the getting the original look if that's what they prefer.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Have you reviewed Hellboy ?
Do you think it was “DNR-ed” ?.

Hellboy UK looks fine as far as I remember.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
Bob, since you and mhafner are in complete agreement as to magnitude of the DNR issue with Patton, care to explain why you and he have such a difference of opinion regarding the “current master” of LoA ?
You can start reading in and around here for catching up to speed……………….
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1547

I have not seen the current master of LOA so I'm not sure we have any difference of opinion. I have seen some stills of the HDNET version, and older HD versions (bad ones) and the clips on the Passage to India BD. The clips are too short to say much but looked at least ok.

[Deciazulado]

The interesting thing is that grain would not have been an issue here as a negative 22 mm x 48.4 mm in size mapped to 872 x 1920 pixels would give very fine grain, similar to the grain seen here, which also results in a sharp image:

[Living Near Shamu]

LOL I must be in the other percentage than the rest of you because I don't understand what grain is...

Deci, what are we supposed to look at when seeing the baldie?

[Deciazulado]

Well you try to see if you see an objectionable grain pattern, and also compare the look or image quality to, for example, mhafner's captures.

Grain is what forms the photographic image on a negative or print. The more you magnify a photographic image the more you can see its grain structure:



Invert the image to see as a positive

[WickyWoo]

The interesting thing is that grain would not have been an issue here as a negative 22 mm x 48.4 mm in size mapped to 872 x 1920 pixels would give very fine grain, similar to the grain seen here, which also results in a sharp image:

That's what's mystified me from the get-go. Patton should have been a very low offender in general when it came to grain due to the large negative

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Hellboy has a lot of grain to it.....an appropriate cinematic level of grain mind you consistant with what I saw theatrically.

If DNR was applied, it was done at a theraputic level and the detail level remains outstanding. I'll look at it again and post if my memory is failing me

Edit: Just looked at it, I;d say a Casino Royale style DNR was done. Theraputic but not enough to crush the fine detail.

Yeah- there is grain there, but there's not much and there's still some good sharp detail (you can see the pores of the "muscle suit" that Hellboy wears). I think it looks really good.

I was originally in this thread saying "grain is good!" but if the output of all of that is something that looks like Hellboy I can deal. (Though, I still see Man on Fire and I, Robot as some of the best PQ movies I own.)

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hah !
Wicky, you're hedging your bets.

Does anyone here remember the theatrical presentation of Hellboy?
Hell, it was only about four years ago and it seems that everyone and his grandfather on the interent have vivid recollections of Patton.

I will say one thing, HeavyHitter is correct in that it looks phenomenal.

lol really, it's quite odd.

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by mhafner

That Patton BD does not look like the film it was mastered from way way beyond the difference imposed by the HD format itself is a fact and not open for debate. A fact confirmed by any professional who knows how film in general looks and what Patton looks like. So let's stop that nonsense of claiming something else right now.
The only discussion worth having is if that changed look of Patton is a good or bad thing for HD media, or more generally, do we want our HD versions to look like the films they came from or something else entirely. Here we have two camps, let's call them the purists and the revisionists.
Purists believe:
HD versions of films (and any other sources) should look as close as possible to the original look of that source (minus unwanted artifacts that polluted the source since its creation, such as scratches, dropouts, color fading and the like (NOT GRAIN)) as good as the medium allows. Adpatation of the source to specific consumer tastes and needs are the responsibilty of said consumers which they can achieve at home on their displays as they desire. They do not belong on the source where they are forced down everybody's collective throats. Film is an art form as well as a commercial commodity.
Revisionists believe:
HD versions of anything should look the way they like it best, whatever that may be (out of the window look, 3D effect, 3D pop, noiseless, grainless, in color, in 3D, pin sharp, saturated colors...). The original look of the source as designed by its creators is irrelevant. Personal immediate viewing pleasure is everything. Film is only a commercial commodity.

So all the outcries that Patton looks fantastic are beside the point, as nobody can invalidate someone else's personal criteria of what a fantastic picture looks like. That's not the issue. The issue is if Patton and all other HD versions should look like the sources they came from, whether the audience prefers that or some other look. And if the audience prefers a modified look, how to achieve that without preventing everyone from the getting the original look if that's what they prefer.

You know, I read this and scratched my head. I don't feel I belong in either of your neatly defined groups. I am content with the way Patton looks but I too wish it was better. But now I think I understand the problem ...conflict over toilet training at infancy.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by supersix4

lol really, it's quite odd.

Funny that.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

I have not seen the current master of LOA so I'm not sure we have any difference of opinion. I have seen some stills of the HDNET version, and older HD versions (bad ones) and the clips on the Passage to India BD. The clips are too short to say much but looked at least ok.

Now you’ve got me confused as weeks back, I received a lot of PM’s from folks giving me discrete links to the *science forum* (noted in the thread on the previous page) that unmercifully bashed the HDNet Movie presentation of LoA as something like an abomination, of which I thought you were one of the protagonists in that free-for-all.

Let’s get this straight for the record, the “current master” that RAH mentions on his Insider’s Thread (where he has been disproportionately absent compared to this thread) is the same HD master that was provided to HDNet Movies for which received the lashing on the *science forum*.............. unless people went back retrospectively and deleted some prior posts on the *science forum*.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m not talking about screenshots. I don’t really pay too much attention to them, for one - it seems there is a great deal of technical variability as they’re posted on the internet, for two – past experiences as to their presentation to other industry folk effecting any real-world decision making has proved essentially a waste of time. < But that’s another topic for another time when I gets the chance to elaborate.

Somebody remind me on my Insider’s Thread to elaborate on this later in a few weeks (when I get more time to post), as I think some people may find it insightful or interesting.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The interesting thing is that grain would not have been an issue here as a negative 22 mm x 48.4 mm in size mapped to 872 x 1920 pixels would give very fine grain, similar to the grain seen here, which also results in a sharp image:

Deci,
You really should do a mini write-up of the Symposium, at least the presentation you found most interesting sometime in the future.

Go ahead and post on my Insider's Thread, when you get the time.
I think people would find it most interesting.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Actually I'm very sure. There's too little grain in general in it, it's not natural especially given how del Toro's movies typically look theatrically. I've seen them all since Mimic. The Hellboy 2 trailer I saw last night with Hulk, was certainly cleaner than I would expect, however it also had a very different lighting profile than most of the footage in Hellboy 1, so I don't see it as a fair comparison.

So in conclusion whether the noise reduction was done to the DI by del Toro or to the Blu, I'm confident it was done. If I had to wager I'd say it was done on the DI given the look and feel of the Hellboy 2 trailer

Wicky,
I’ll withhold anymore comments on Hellboy until 'aramis' has a chance to view the Blu-ray because he was the original guy that mentioned he is both a fan of this title and actually saw the theatrical presentation. I think that would be the fairest thing for me to do.

I will say though, that I am familiar with the DI which was done at EFILM (Deluxe) as well as the Blu-ray encoding/authoring done inhouse at the studio of record.

[Brain Sturgeon]

Screencaps are generally worthless in image analysis as there are just too many variables in how the image was captured, but this is so obvious it bears repeating: Compare these two posted images on this thread:





Which looks more natural? I would opine that it is obvious that the texture/detail of the forehead and safe in the second images are so much more natural looking than the first image, without loss of sharpness. Can you imagine that look to Patton-- pure joy. That is the point of raising this issue. At this point, I am not demonstrating this issue to beat it to death for the studios ad infinitum-- this is just to try to educate those who might not get what this hubbub is about.

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

You know, I read this and scratched my head. I don't feel I belong in either of your neatly defined groups. I am content with the way Patton looks but I too wish it was better. But now I think I understand the problem ...conflict over toilet training at infancy.

Look, if you wish it was better-- "more like the original"-- then you get the point of this issue. No need to resort to weak ass ad hominem statements.

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Look, if you wish it was better-- "more like the original"-- then you get the point of this issue. No need to resort to weak ass ad hominem statements.

Hmmm that's funny, I thought my comment was quite witty and rather succinct. Somewhere, somehow the point I have been trying to make has been lost in shuffle—or ignored. As I have said previously, although the Blu-ray disc of Patton may not be the perfection some enthusiasts wanted, there is still plenty to admire. An "ad hominem" statement (as you put it) arises out of emotion and not logic or reason. I don't believe I am the one being illogical or unreasonable. Patton looks better than it has ever looked on any home video format. And that is the truth.

If you don't want me to retort, don't quote me.